Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Eric Martlew in the Chair]

Clause 9

Local flood risk management strategies: England

Amendment proposed (this day): 29, in clause 9, page 7, line 16, at end insert
(10) The Minister shall as soon as possible instigate, publish and have regard to a review undertaken by a panel of independent persons pertaining to the costs which will be incurred by local authorities in implementing the provisions of this Clause before the Clause is commenced..(Miss McIntosh.)

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Eric Martlew: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking amendment 113, in clause 9, page 7, line 16, at end add
(10) The Secretary of State shall as soon as possible instigate, publish and have regard to a review undertaken by a panel of independent persons, including representatives from local authorities, universities, professional institutions and other bodies as the Secretary of State deems appropriate, pertaining to the training that will be required for the lead local flood authorities to undertake the functions conferred under this section before this section is commenced..
I hope that we will be able to make some progress this afternoon. It is a long Bill, and we are time-limited, of course.

Huw Irranca-Davies: It is great to serve under your stewardship again this afternoon, Mr. Martlew. I was in the middle of responding to the amendments, and I was making it clear that we would fully fund the local authoritys role in respect not only of the diversity of training needs and so on, but of any new duties, powers and responsibilities that emanate from the Bill.
We have carefully assessed the new burdens that we are placing on local authorities, and we have committed to providing the necessary funding in full. We have said that, from commencement, we will provide an extra £36 million a year to lead flood authorities as area-based grants to fund the new role in England. That will allow local authority-led flood management activity to triple from around £18 million to £54 million a year. In addition, a contingency sum of £8 million has been set aside for year 1.
The evidence that we have does not support increasing the funding provision. Just to make it clear, it will ultimately be taxpayersour constituentsacross the country, the vast majority of whom are not at direct risk of being flooded, who will foot the bill. They will not thank us for straying from a good evidence base or for providing more than we think is necessary. In simple opportunity-cost terms, every £1 that we give to local authorities for flood management is £1 that we cannot spend on hospitals, schools or even on flood defences, such as those on main rivers and around the coast, yet flooding from those major sources represents a far greater risk than flooding from surface water, and the benefits of investment in those defences exceed the costs by around 8:1. We have made a commitment, but we need carefully to examine any call for additional resources and, on behalf of our constituents, to make rational decisions that are based on the evidence available.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Martlew. The Ministers clarification was helpful, but I am a little concerned that the Government are relying on raising local levies. He seems to miss the point that that money will come from exactly the same people whom he was talking about, and district councils, internal drainage boards and the Environment Agency, not the Government, will get the blame. Does he take that point?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed, I do; the point is well made. That is why we need to keep the matter under review. We cannot base our decisions on a snapshot taken now, on the independent review that was carried out last summer, on evidence from 2002 or whatever. We need to keep working with local government, to make this work over time.
It is worth pointing out, by the way, that some of the functions in the Bill will not kick in straight away. There is a time scale in respect of the implications for the transfer of local sewers and the roll-out of sustainable drainage systems development. That will be done development by development, not all on day one. Indeed, there may be cost savings at the front end, rather than increased costs. That is why we need to keep the matter under review.

Laurence Robertson: I do not think that at this point we can set figures for how much money will be available. We do not have national strategies, or strategies for England or Wales. Can the Minister explain literally how this will work? Will a lead local flood authority prepare a strategy and then go to the Government and say, This is likely to cost £8 million. Can we have £8 million, please? I am not quite sure how it will physically work.

Huw Irranca-Davies: There will be no need for that. The funding that I have described will be provided on the current area-based grant system. If there were a call for more funding and the evidence supported such a call, funding would be made available through the normal support mechanisms to local authorities in those areas identified as being at the greatest risk of flooding and so on; but of course, our investment, which has doubled in recent years, would continue.
To clarify a point made by the hon. Member for Vale of York, local levies will not be used to fund the core elements of the Bill. We are providing additional Government money to recognise the net burdens, and we will keep it under review.
The assessment of burdens is based on independent research carried out last summer, when the draft Bill was published and consulted on. Just to make it clear, the assessment takes the upper end of the likely costs, because we are cognisant of the concerns that were raised by local government. We went not for the lower end but for the upper end, to provide added confidence.
We have shown a commitment by providing funding this year and next to more than half of all the county and unitary authorities in England, where the need is greatest, to implement Sir Michael Pitts recommendations and take action straight away. As this is a devolved matter, the responsibility for commissioning such a review in Waleswere it to comewould rest with the Welsh Assembly Government. Welsh Ministers are already discussing the impact with the local authorities and with the Welsh Local Government Association.
The funding will be provided up front. This will not be a drag-down of funding; the area-based grants that I mentioned£36 millionwill be provided up front to fund the roles. If local authorities require more, we will consider it, but we will need good evidence to back up such a request. That is the dialogue that we are currently having with the LGA.
We all want to see the Bill in place, so we must not put hurdles in the way of the commencement of this legislation; that, however, is what these amendments would do. The best way of determining whether authorities are sufficiently funded is to provide money nowas we are already doing and as we promised to doand allow them to get on with the job. We have already committed to monitoring the actual costs, not the estimates, and we will make good any shortfalls that arise.
The hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshireplease pass on my best wishes to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, who is ill todayhave tabled a further amendment that requires the Secretary of State to instigate, publish and have regard to a review undertaken by a panel of independent persons about the training that will be required.
To pick up on the point raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, I met with Unison and the Sector Skills Body Forum only last week to discuss the ways forward and work force planning within not only local authorities but the water sector generally. We will be in a position to introduce some plans and suggestions, but they are not all pertinent to this clause or this Bill.

David Drew: Some facts and figures on the matter would be quite useful. Although it is not necessarily the responsibility of this Bill, knowing how many water engineers work in local authorities would form a good backcloth to this legislation. What is the potential shortfall and what is the age profile of those people? As I said in my speech, we need to have a clear background to whatever we pass in legislation. So, if the Minister would bring forward such facts and figures, it would be very useful.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I might be able to be of some help to my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] I have just realised that I am dropping my hs; I am suddenly talking a form of estuary WelshI might be of some elp to my hon. Friend. My parents did not bring me up to drop my hs in Parliament.
Our assessment is based on independent work by consultants. On average, it suggests that 0.5 to 1.5 extra staff per authority will be needed for the lead flood authority role, plus a similar number more to look after the SUDS elementas I mentioned, the SUDS element will not happen overnight. The costs of those involved in SUDS can be recovered through planning fees, which we have not discussed, so they do not need to be funded.
To allow some contingency, however, the assessment of burdens assumes an average of 2.25 extra full-time employees per lead flood authority. Let me drill under that average. As we know, some large county authorities with significant risks may need to recruit four or five staff, while some unitaries, which already have strong, ongoing drainage and watercourse roles, might be able to perform the role with very few extra resources. We need to keep the issue under review, but we are funding it. We are also funding training and investment in it, by helping with graduate schemes and skills schemes in local authorities. I am sure that I can expand more on that as well.

David Drew: I do not want to labour this point, but in my experience of talking to local government officers, particularly those who have a water engineering background, they do not totally understand what SUDS are.
I have no technical expertise, and this is an evolving area. The Minister talks about using the planning system, but developers will realise that this will be an expensive part of a future planning proposal and do their utmost not to spend that money. I want to know whether we are talking to the building industry, particularly developers, about its understanding of the changes.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to say that such a discussion is already under way; we are not waiting for the commencement of the Bill to start on that. We are talking to the building industry, the local authorities and others, because the change will involve, for many, a new skill set. Alongside other Government Departments, we are developing the technical details of the SUDS development and the hierarchy that it will mean. There will be different types of SUDS development. On the back of that, we have identified the skill sets that are required. There is a job of work to be done, but we have not waited to start it; it is already under way.
The amendments suggest that a training review by an independent panel will have to take place before the training of the lead local authorities can commence. That cannot happen; we need to get on with the Bill. The work is under way already. Although I wholeheartedly agree that there is a need to ensure that the lead local flood authorities have the capacity to undertake their role, requiring any sort of review before commencement would be unduly bureaucratic and could have the unfortunate effect of delaying the management of flood risk. That would affect people who could otherwise be helped.
As I have said, we are working closely with a range of organisations including the LGA, the Environment Agency, local authorities and the Sector Skills Council to identify and provide the training required. We recognise that that will take some time, and we have reflected that in the assumptions that we have made around the programme of work. I have mentioned Wales, but when it comes to training it will be for Welsh Ministers to instigate, publish and have regard to a review in Wales, should the amendment go forward, because the matter is devolved. The Welsh Assembly Government are currently discussing with the WLGA the implications of the training requirement in the Bill, and are actively considering the skills and capacity issue.
Let me return to the matter raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Selby and for City of Durham. The suggestion was challenging because it is to do with net burdens, finance, costs and so on. They suggested putting on a formal footing the discussions that we are currently having with the LGA as a prime partner. I am quite taken with the idea, because we are currently having intense dialogues with the LGA, as we have done through the development of this Bill, the draft Bill and so on. Formalising such talks would be a good way to take the whole matter forward. Rather than have an independent panel, it would be better to send Ministers away to put the talks on a proper footing and say, You will now have to plan your way through this with the LGA.
This process will not be over in 12 months, or even two years. The development of SUDS and the transfer of private sewers will mean that we will still be here in a few years. We therefore need to put our discussions on a formal footing. I have no problem with doing that in some kind of partnership with the LGA, and possibly others such as the Environment Agency and the Department for Communities and Local Government.
However, we do not need to legislate to do that, and we do not want to delay the commencement of the Bill. This afternoon, my officials are meeting the LGA. They have a range of issues on their agenda, and I am quite happy for them to raise the idea of formalising the arrangements there, so that we take forward an ongoing assessment of the costs and burdens as they arise. On the back of that, depending on what discussions arise, I am happy to write to members of the Committee and the LGA to put things on a formal footing. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the Committee.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: That is a helpful response and I thank the Minister. Will he confirm that if this partnership is put on a more formal basis, it will consider matters of training and skills, as well as financial burdens?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Absolutely. Regardless of the aspect of skills I mentioned, which could be funded through local planning application funding, we have the skills and training, SUDS and the transfer of private sewers. A very good eye must be kept on all those things. We are confident in the assessment that we have done. We have gone for the lower, more conservative estimates. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about formalising the way forward, and I am happy to give the Committee that undertaking. I will write to Committee members if we have progress this afternoon.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and thank all hon. Members for their contributions to what has been a good debate. I am mindful that the Local Government Association is meeting at this time. I may revisit the proposals at a later stage if insufficient progress is made, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eric Martlew: We now come to the stand part debate. I am conscious that we had a full debate on this matter this morning, and I hope that this debate will not go over things that have already been said.

Anne McIntosh: There are points not relating to any of the amendments or to our discussions this morning that I would like to address.
While I remember it, I ask the hon. Member for Cheltenham to pass on our best wishes to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire for a speedy recovery. I hope it is not to do with anything that was said on Tuesday.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire and I are both privileged to sit on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. A conclusion of its report on the draft Bill on this matter was:
We consider that the local authority proposal for catchment area flood management boards, similar to Regional Flood Defence Committees, has much to recommend it.
I do not see that that recommendation, which I endorse wholeheartedly, was raised elsewhere in the Bill.
In a debate on another clause, the Minister gave the definition for ground water. The explanatory notes inform us that the definition of ground water in the Bill is different from that in directive 2000/60/EC, on establishing a framework for Community action. In the Bill, it is defined in a way that is relevant to flood risk management. We are told that it includes
all water which is below the surface of the ground and in direct contact with the ground or subsoil.
On reflection, I wonder whether the difference in the definition might have covered the points that I wished to include. To a lay person it is confusing to have two different definitionsone in the Bill and one in the directive. It would be helpful to know the reasons for having them.
It was pointed out in the evidence session last week that the difficulty with the national flood management strategy is that there should be regional variations. Will the Minister confirm that clause 9 allows for such regional and local variations? For example, some rivers are deep whereas others are shallow; some need to be dredged and some do not. We cannot simply have a no-dredging policy. That might be changed if there is a change at the general election. We will see about that in the fullness of time. Certainly, we firmly believe that flood risk management should be maintained at a local level, using the local expertise of those who know the area, with a strategic overview by the Environment Agency.
Farmers and landowners are concerned that there should be a greater input from local people in shaping local flood and coastal erosion risk management strategies. How does the Minister envisage that such an input will happen? Obviously, we will keep a close eye on the resourcing element, and we will revert to that in future, even if not during the course of this Committee.
It would be helpful if the Minister explained the relationship between clauses 9 and 8. I am aware that the Bill covers an appeals procedure, which will be most welcome. We accept that the Bill offers a more joined-up and effective approach to managing flood risks, but we would like to know how such large-scale preparations and recovery are to be funded. The Minister has given us some indication of that, but perhaps he could give me a specific reference so that I can read more about it myself.
As for the insurance concerns, it will be difficult to see what the relationship between the two strategies will be. One of my concerns, which we will return to elsewhere, is that we should be able to write into the Billin clause 9 and elsewhere where relevantan element of flexibility between the tiers, rather than having a constant fixation with the county. The hon. Member for Stroud admitted to not knowing a great deal about SUDS. The more I read about SUDS the less I feel I understand them.
As for SUDS relating to highways, counties are definitely the right level of authority, but for development, to which the Minister referred in respect of recovering some of the costs through planning charges, the district council is the relevant authority. We should either write into the Bill a level of flexibility or state that to be the case. There is no point in having that lack of clarity in the Bill.
It is fair to note that the LGA and the local authorities accept their responsibilities and look forward to the clarity that they hope the Bill will give them. The Minister says that the funds are sufficient, but the LGA is firmly of the view that the figures being used are invalid and seven years old, which is a concern. It is the councils that are the experts. Only a small percentage of authorities spend any money on private sewers, so we beg to differ with the Minister. Does he know how many councils spend heavily on repairing and maintaining private sewers? Can he give us a ballpark figure for an annual maintenance cost to those councils?

Angela Watkinson: I would like clarification of one or two points that were not covered in the previous debate. The success of a flood risk strategy is tested by the outcome in an emergency situation. How does risk management relate to an emergency response, who are the consultees in the preparation of the strategy, and at what stage are they consulted?
Clause 9(4) lists a number of elements of the strategy: functions, objectives, measures, how and when the measures are expected to be implemented, and an assessment function. The issue might be dealt with in subsection (6), which refers to risk management authorities, but will the Minister clarify who has consulted fire and rescue services, police, statutory undertakers, St. John Ambulance, social services and any other organisation that might be called to be part of a response to an emergency flood? Perhaps we can return to this under clause 13, which refers to co-operation and arrangements.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to respond and I will try to take your proviso on board, Mr. Martlew, and respond directly and snappily. On the clarification of clause 19 and the ability to have regional variationsyes, absolutely. We see the potential for catchment area flood boards, but we do not have to legislate for them. They can be created already; they do not have to be statutory. That follows the theme we have been talking about: the need to engage properly with local partnerships and local expertise on the ground. If there is a mood in an area to do that, it can be done; doing so is not precluded.
The question of the difference in the level of ground water is an immensely technical oneit sometimes confuses me as wellbut I am happy to answer it in writing. In the Bill, the definition includes all water below ground level, but the directive covers water below ground level that has reached the level of the water table. I said that issue was technical, and those are only the introductory comments. I will happily write to the hon. Member for Vale of York and other members of the Committee to explain it in some detail.
On the local input of farmers and individual landowners, which I know has been a theme of the Committee so far, the lead local authorities have a duty to consult the public on their strategies, and that should include farmers and their representatives. I am sure we will return to that subject, and we will consider what we can do in guidance to make matters explicit.
On the seven-year-old figures used in the assessment of some of the costs that we are working on, there is a counter-argument that if we used up-to-date figures from the past couple of yearssince, for example, we made clear our intention to transfer private sewersthe fact that some local authorities might have amended their practice in anticipation of that could give us a completely different set of figures. The point the hon. Lady made is right: it is clear from our previous discussions that it is necessary to keep those figures under review, to assess the actual costs coming forward and to use those to guide our future discussions. We need to have robust evidence.
The hon. Lady asked me to point out where exactly in the Bill local flexibility is provided for. It is in the agreements within clause 13(4) and clause 29, which deals with restructuring. To return to the issue of private sewers for a moment, the LGA has not as yet come up with anything better than our current analysis based on its figures. However, we are interested to see whether we can do that altogether.
Evidence suggests that some local authorities are indeed winding down their activities in anticipation of the transfer. However, as I said, we will formalise our arrangement with the LGA. In response to the query of the hon. Member for Upminster about the relationship with an emergency response, all relevant organisations would be involved in the local resilience forum, which will consider flooding and other risks, so there is a synchronicity with those organisations. I hope that answers the hon. Ladys questions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Local flood risk management strategies: wales

Martin Horwood: I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 10, page 8, line 10, at end insert
(8A) Two or more lead local authorities sharing a common landscape area or water catchment area may work together to produce a shared landscape-scale local flood management strategy in their area..

Eric Martlew: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 99, in clause 13, page 9, line 42, at end insert
group of risk management authorities working together, or.

Allows landscape-scale working, or even just collaborative project management between neighbouring local authorities.

Martin Horwood: It is good to be serving under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr. Martlew. I thank the Minister and the hon. Member for Vale of York for their kind remarks, which I will pass on to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire.
Amendment 98amendment 99 is on a similar themeis trying to start us on the road to what I think is needed: a radical step change in our approach to planning. Planning at its best, in the tradition of Ebenezer Howard and the Town and Country Planning Association, was a discipline that tried to take an holistic view of an area and look at the entire environment. Sadly, in the intervening century, the pressures of legislation, competing local priorities, local authority boundaries, and the sheer pressure of work and bureaucracy of planning, have reduced the discipline at timesor the exercise of the discipline in practiceto a rather stressful and bureaucratic balancing act between competing interests at the very local level. It is often terribly local. It is often about narrowing things down to the consideration of just one site at a time. At best, it deals with zones of a particular town. That matters a lot and can lead to unfortunate approaches for towns as a whole.
That approach can have a serious effect on the natural environment and the landscape. With our growing awareness of the importance of ecology and the natural environmentin the jargon of ecosystem servicesto peoples health, well-being and quality of life, it becomes increasingly important to try to reverse the trend.
In 2008, the Liberal Democrats convened a working group, which I was pleased to be involved in, to look at a range of policies on the natural environment. Many organisations gave evidence to us on the kind of changes to policy and legislation that might be needed to reinforce the protection and good management of the natural environment. One of the strongest pieces of evidence that came through from many organisations, which coincidentally included those involved in the Blueprint for Water and the campaign for better management of water resources, was to shift the approach to planning the natural environment to the landscape scale wherever possible.
We have had planning at a larger than local authority level under this Government. For example, we have the notorious regional spatial strategies. Sadly, I think the Government have failed on a number of grounds. First, because the measures are top-down, they have been handed down by the Department for Communities and Local Government, through the Government offices at regional level, such as the south-west, and enforced on local authorities with consultation, but no willingness to change. In that way, there is never any ownership and the local knowledge and expertise does not come through.
The allocation of spatial planning has been reduced almost to the allocation of new housing. The only maps in the draft regional spatial strategy for the south-west show where the new houses will go. There are no comparable maps showing where the valuable green space is to local communities or where there is vital biodiversity that needs to be protected. There are certainly no maps showing the valuable watercourses and the location of areas that hold water in the landscape or could hold more water to protect against flooding.
The purpose of the amendment is to give firm direction to lead local authorities. It would not oblige them to work together on joint flood risk management strategies, but would give a strong incentive to do so. Two or more lead local authorities that share a common landscape area or water catchment area should be able to work together to produce a shared landscape-scale local flood management strategy. That would have important benefits for flood risk management. In addition, it might help to start the shift towards more landscape-scale planning for the natural environment in general, and so have ecological and environmental benefits. It might even save money if, instead of each lead local authority producing its own flood risk management plan, we enabled them to work together to produce joint ones.
This is a huge opportunity and this is an important amendment. I hope that the Conservatives will support it and I look forward to the Ministers support or encouragement on the matter.

Jamie Reed: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting and compelling point. Should we incentivise or compel local authorities to partake in such partnerships?

Martin Horwood: Partnership is important, but the amendment is carefully phrased: it says, may work together. We should never be in the business of forcing local authorities to work together when they do not want to. I can imagine that some areas of the south-west might not want to work together. It is about providing incentives and trying to give a clear direction, saying that the best way to approach the natural environment is on an holistic basis, looking at a large landscape-scale approach, and that that would be good environmentally as well has having planning benefits.

Huw Irranca-Davies: This is an interesting amendment, because it would, in effect, make the Bill state expressly that lead local authorities in adjoining areas can work together to produce a joint local flood risk strategy. I have made it clear in my previous remarks that I am quite keen on the idea of collaborative working where the expertise is located and on a larger areacatchment areabasis, which is curiously in line with what the hon. Member for Vale of York said earlier about the catchment-area approach. That makes sense for authorities that are willing to work together. I accept that it would be beneficial and I should like it to happen. Indeed, it is not only beneficial, but it could be desirable in some cases. All I would say is that we do not need new powers to enable that to happen: it is already possible under existing powers.
If lead local authorities wish to work together to produce a strategy covering a shared catchment, that is possible. It is also possible for them to put together a strategy covering the area of more than one authority. The important thing is that there is a strategy that covers an area, but it is possible to do that already in practice.

Jamie Reed: I have been following the debate closely. I think that the impulse behind the amendment is credible and deserves consideration. The Minister has said that he recognises that water has no bordersall Committee members recognise thatand we all want there to be shared responsibility. Will the Minister give us some real detail about the ways in which local authorities might co-operate as a result of the Bill?

Huw Irranca-Davies: That is a helpful intervention. On the ground, in reality, we will see authorities having a joint strategyI am utterly confident that that can happen alreadyand working together to ensure that the content of their strategies are compatible with each others. Clause 13 requires authorities to co-operate in the exercise of their functions, so it will facilitate that. The measure will also be supported by Environment Agency guidance, specifically provided for in clause 7(6), which will seek to disseminate best practice on partnership working. This provision shoots through the whole Bill.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham tabled amendment 99, which would insert after another risk management authority in clause 13(4) the words
group of risk management authorities working together,
which, again, is in the theme that he is advancing. The intention behind the amendment is to allow collaborative working and delegations of functions across boundariesthis great idea of working togetherwhich I agree should be permitted. I send some sympathy, because this is the way we should be heading. We do not want to compel or force, but we need to enable this to happen. However, the amendment is not needed because the words risk management authority will be read under section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 as including the plural as well as the singular. One authority will be able to enter into arrangements with a few others because legally it defines itself as both singular and plural. Authorities could come together as a group.
I should be interested to know what the hon. Gentleman makes of those observations and what the hon. Member for Vale of York feels about the collaborative approach to working across borders.

Anne McIntosh: I am minded to agree with the Minister. I believe that the catchment management area is where the natural scope would come. I have been briefed by the floods team of the EU Commission directorate on the implications, and I know that in the context of a future, broader Bill, there is definitely scope for that. My impression, on a strict reading of the existing Bill, and from the Ministers explanation, is that we do not need the amendments.
I would be concerned if the Minister were saying that there would not be natural scope, because such things are often difficult for adjoining areas. I look at my own area, where trying to get district councils to work together and with the county council is exemplary, but if the Minister is saying that that is to be encouraged, I would be satisfied that we do not need a formal statutory reference to it.

Martin Horwood: I am encouraged by what the Minister has said. It was extremely positive, and seems to suggest that the amendments may not be necessary, and that exactly the kind of shift that we are looking for might be in his mind, too.
Perhaps the Minister might be able to clear up my one slight reservation. Collaboration and co-operation are not quite the same as shared working on a shared strategyit is only collaboration. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight probably gave us one of the best possible examples: Hampshire as an authority entirely surrounds the City of Southampton unitary authority and would therefore be subject to flooding going across boundaries.
Let me put this absolutely clearly: would it be legal under the terms of the Bill if Southampton did not produce its own flood risk management strategy but collaborated on a Hampshire-wide flood risk management strategy that explicitly included it? Or would Southampton be taken to task for not having fulfilled its duty to produce its own flood risk management strategy? If the Minister would clarify that, I might be perfectly willing to withdraw the amendment.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My understanding is that joint work on producing a joint strategy across border areas would indeed be legal within the interpretation of the Bill. The Bill will allow that to happen. That is my clear understanding, but, if it is not correct, I will happily write to Committee members to clarify the matter. That is how we fashioned the Bill; it is how I intended it to operate. It will allow authorities that want to come together to produce a strategy, either as a pair of authorities or as several authorities in a group, to do so. Shared working is allowed within the scope of the Bill.
The only proviso I would give is that, ultimately, the buck must stop somewhere. Authorities can work together and produce a shared strategy, but the lead authority in any particular area is ultimately responsible for what happens in that area. There is no sharing of responsibility. It lies with democratically accountable individuals in the lead authority, and I think that that is right. It is simple, and it is what I believe Pitt was seeking. He said that we should not construct another edifice that confuses people about where to go. Authorities can get on with bringing strategies together, and can work on them together to produce one strategythat is legally allowedbut the buck has to stop with the lead local authority in each area, which will be accountable.

Martin Horwood: I am encouraged by what the Minister has said. It seems that he has entirely answered my questions, and that he has opened the door to a new way of working on planning policy, if only in this narrow area of flood risk management. We may have started a local revolution here. We may actually get to the stage where planning is no longer a narrowing down to ever smaller districts and small plots but finally starts to look at a more holistic level at landscapes. This could be a very important development, and I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Effect of national and local strategies: England

Amendment made: 49, in clause 11, page 8, line 18, leave out subsection (1) and insert
(1) In exercising its flood and coastal erosion risk management functions, an English risk management authority must
(a) act in a manner which is consistent with the national strategy and guidance, and
(b) except in the case of a water company, act in a manner which is consistent with the local strategies and guidance..(Huw Irranca-Davies.)

Martin Horwood: I beg to move amendment 118, in clause 11, page 8, line 20, leave out consistent with and insert have regard to.

Eric Martlew: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 119, in clause 11, page 8, line 29, leave out consistent with and insert have regard to.
Amendment 120, in clause 12, page 9, line 8, leave out consistent with and insert have regard to.

Martin Horwood: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, I will not speak to the amendment for long, to the relief, I am sure, of all hon. Members. It is a testing amendment, and we have already discussed in another context the difference between policies or activities having either to be consistent with a flood risk management strategy or to have regard to it. We discussed that previously in the context of whether one local flood risk management strategy would have to be consistent with the national flood risk management strategy, as that would be an entirely manageable responsibility.
The demand for consistency in clause 11 could be much more onerous, as it applies to all risk management authorities. We are now including district councils and internal drainage boards, which do not have huge resources, and they are being asked to be consistent with all flood risk management strategies and guidance. I should be interested to hear the Minister respond on the legal implications of that and the liabilities that it might put on such bodies. Guidance is normally voluntary, but we seem to be placing a legal duty on bodies, such as internal drainage boards, to be absolutely consistent with guidance, or to risk sanctions that presumably could be quite serious. That barely seems to be guidance any more, but something much more demanding.
I begin to wonder whether that is one of the examples of poor drafting that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee might have pointed to, as we do not seem to have quite got a grasp of the interlocking web, which the Bill will create, of responsibilities and consistencies and of people having to have regard to each others strategies. I am not sure whether that has really been sorted out, so I would be grateful to the Minister for his comments.

Huw Irranca-Davies: In place of the requirement that risk management authorities, except water companies, act consistently with the national and local strategies, amendments 118 and 119 would introduce a weaker requirement that they should have regard to those strategies. Under amendment 120, water companies also would not need to act consistently with the national strategy, but only to have regard to it. We have touched in previous debates upon the need to act consistently and not simply to have regard to a strategy. Under the amendment, those authorities could depart from the strategies when they give a reason for doing so, and I do not think that any hon. Member wants that to happen.
The Government are firmly committed to ensuring that all risk management authorities act consistently with the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy, because, in the light of our previous discussions, the national strategy has a key role to play in setting out the important approaches to flood managementfor example, in taking a risk-based approach, considering resilience-type measures and obtaining the wider environmental benefits to which the hon. Member for Cheltenham has referred.
The national strategy will also seek to ensure that different authorities do not work in opposition to each other. That is of real importance because, as we have said, water does not respect political or administrative boundaries; it can have detrimental effects from one area to another. In any event, it is intended that the national strategy should set out broad approaches and not be prescriptive about the detail of schemes, and we have given the outline to the Committee. However, in acting consistently with local strategies, that duty would apply to district councils, internal drainage boards and highways authorities, not to water companies.
Clause 11(1) and (3) state that water companies must have regard to the local strategy, but not necessarily to act consistently with it. That is intended to avoid placing excessive burdens on water companies and their charge payers and interfering with the regulatory regime that operates alongside it. None the less, water companies must act consistently with the national strategy, because they have to
have regard to the local strategies,
and they must be able to explain why they would deviate from it.

Martin Horwood: It seems a little extraordinary to try to remove the burden from charge payers and, more obviously, from the shareholders of local water companiesgiven the enormous profits that the water companies make, presumably they will have the legal resources to defend themselves if they were challengedbut not from something as small as an internal drainage board or district council.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed, but there are parallel obligations for the water companies both in terms of the regulatory regime and the people who pay their bills through the water mechanism. As I have explained, they have to act consistently with the national strategy, because they must have regard to the local strategy. They would have to explain why they chose to deviate from it on any occasion, and they will be held accountable by the scrutiny committees locally, as well as by being judicially reviewable.
As for the measure being too prescriptive for internal drainage boards and, perhaps, smaller councils, it is intended that the lead local authorities work closely with other authorities in drawing up their strategies. In that way, those that need to act consistently with it should be able to comply. The Environment Agencys guidance is intended to disseminate best practice for working together locally and should help to facilitate working in partnership, rather than duplicating work.
If a risk management authority cannot comply with the measure, it can raise the matter directly with the Secretary of State, who has the power to give guidance to the lead local flood authority, which can review the financial position. So authorities have that recourse if they need it. We do not anticipate such a situation arising, but if they need that recourse they have it.
We intend all the bodies to work closely with the lead local authority in putting together the strategy, so there should be little possibility of the lead authority dictating to some other authority. Given the duty to act consistently, everybody will have a strong and consistent incentive to get involved in the process.
All risk management partners will be full partners in the creation of both the local strategies and the local guidance that relates to them. Therefore, there is no reason why they will not want to implement the guidance and strategies that have been part and parcel of their work. The essence is that we do the job properly on the ground. I am talking about real local engagement and collaboration. When we put our offer out there and say to all the management partners that they have the ability to create a local strategy, our expectation is that they should get on with doing that job and deliver local solutions.

Anne McIntosh: The spirit of co-operation is alive and well, and we obviously support the amendments. I found the Ministers explanation most helpful, because clauses 11 and 12 are not quite as clear as he has expressed them.

Martin Horwood: I am not entirely convinced by the Ministers explanation, which still seems to be slightly tortuous. I have not detected an answer to the question about why a legal duty will be placed on organisations such as district councils always to be consistent with something that is called guidance. Guidance is normally something that need not be applied consistently.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I intervene only to reiterate that if this was top-down guidance from a Minister in Whitehall, I would have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but this is local guidance and local strategies that local bodies will construct themselves. On that basis, they will be devising it in accordance with the national strategy parameters and in a way in which they can deliver, and that is very good for local democracy.

Martin Horwood: Yes, if only everything that we were consulted on produced the outcome that we wanted, I am sure that we would all be happier. I am realistic about the prospects of the amendment being accepted, so I will not press it to a vote. Although I am not entirely satisfied, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 50, in clause 11, page 8, line 27, leave out from exercising to must and insert
a flood or coastal erosion risk management function in relation to an area in England, a water company.
Amendment 51, in clause 11, page 8, line 29, leave out paragraph (a).(Huw Irranca-Davies.)

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 11, page 8, line 31, at end insert
(c) be consulted on all major new developments and their waste water capacity.

Eric Martlew: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 112, in schedule 3, page 49, line 3, leave out county council and insert
local planning authority (as defined in section 1 (1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).
New clause 14No automatic connection to waste water pipes for major new developments
(1) There shall be no connection to waste water pipes or drains granted until
(a) water companies have been consulted on the capacity of the existing system to manage the extra demands from new properties;
(b) water companies have conducted a detailed assessment of the likely extra demand and the capacity of the existing system to handle it;
(c) financial responsiblity for building the extra infrastructure has been apportioned, and
(d) formal planning permission has been given..
New clause 15Water companies to be statutory consultees
(1) The relevant planning authority for all major new developments must consult equally
(a) water companies and
(b) the Environment Agency.
(2) The consultations must
(a) be in accordance with PPS 25;
(b) establish the impact of the proposed new development on the local drainage system, and
(c) inform the planning application process..
New clause 22Planning permission and connection to the sewerage system
(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 70B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 insert
70C Prior to granting planning permission under section 70(1), a local planning authority must consult the relevant sewerage undertaker in relation to the proposed location of any connection to the sewerage system..
(3) sewerage system shall have the same meaning as in section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991..

Anne McIntosh: These are probably the most important amendments that have been moved so far. I will consider each of them in turn, although taking all the amendments together, the idea is that we achieve what the Government say that they wish to achieve: the end of the automatic right to connect, which was one of the primary objectives of the Pitt report.
Amendment 11 would insert a new paragraph (c) to clause 11(3) to insist that a water company is
consulted on all major new developments and their waste water capacity.
Just to be clear, I am talking not about a minor development of one or two houses filling in, but about major new developments, such as the 300 houses that I mentioned along the Muston road in a saturated, waterlogged field. The Minister will probably say that water companies are consulted at the moment, but I would like them to be consulted on planning applications on the same basis as the Environment Agency, under planning policy statement 25.
The idea is that a water company would not just be consulted on a major new development of anything over 20, 30, 50 or more houses, as under the Governments housing objectives, but be able to say that the capacity of waste water coming from those houses would not connect to the existing infrastructure, if that was so, and that conditions could be attached in that regard.
The amendment relates to earlier instances that the Committee has considered, including on the Isle of Wight and in Gloucestershire especially. From my knowledge of North Yorkshire, the Environment Agency often sets conditions at a certain level, but the housing development goes ahead and other existing houses from previous recent developments are flooded through no fault of their owners. I hope that the Minister will agree to establish the precedent that the developers be required to pay for the costs of improving the infrastructure and for making good the connection, rather than the existing development.
The amendment shows quite radical thinking and is intended to be helpful, because the Government have statedthe Minister said it as recently as last week in the evidence sessionthat they seek to end the automatic right to connect. I hope that amendment 112 is in a similar vein, but I will let the hon. Member for Cheltenham explain.
New clauses 14, 15 and 22 add meat to what we intend. New clause 14 would end the automatic connection as a statutory right. There would be no automatic connection for waste water pipes for major new developments without the agreement of the water or sewerage company. It states that water companies must be consulted to ensure that the existing infrastructure system can manage the new demands and that water companies must have conducted a detailed assessment and looked at scenarios to see what the extra demand and increased capacity will be. Subsection (1)(c) of new clause 14, which is extremely important, states:
financial responsibility for building the extra infrastructure has been apportioned.
That speaks to the point that the developer and the new houses would have to respond to the call for extra financing.
Formal planning permission would be given only on the basis that the criteria the water companies had requested were met. That means that we would not see the scale of spill-off into existing developments from new developments that there has been. That would meet the Ministers stated aim of ending automatic connection.
New clause 15 would make water companies statutory consultees on the same basis as the Environment Agency. In the first year that the Environment Agency obtained the new powers, there were 16 instances of planning authorities proceeding to give planning permission, despite what it had said. I think we can all point to examples where planning permission should not have been given because the developments have flooded or have caused flooding on adjoining properties. New clause 15 would give water companies the same statutory authority, as consultees, as the Environment Agency. They would be able to set conditions and inform the planning process. New clause 22 would make consequential changes to previous legislation relating to planning permission and connection to the sewerage system.
I hope the Minister and the Committee will agree to the changes, because all constituents in England and Wales would benefit from them. In case I do not have the opportunity to speak after the hon. Member for Cheltenham speaks to amendment 112, I state now that we support it because we do not believe that county level is necessarily the right level for the approval of SUDS. We would like to see flexibility, as I said earlier, and that amendment would deliver it, subject to the Ministers comments.

Laurence Robertson: I want to speak briefly in support of my hon. Friends proposals. Given the intention behind them, I am surprised that they are not already in the Bill. This issue has been discussed by Pitt and others. My impression was that there was a consensus that we end the automatic right to connect.
People living in areas that have flooded may have seen the drainage system doing the reverse of what it is supposed to dothrowing water on to the streets and creating rivers running down them. That is a spectacular but very frightening sight, and it is damaging to any houses that happen to be in the way of what becomes a river. I have a particular image in my mind of where that took place. Again, that was following a new development being built in an area where it should not have been built. We come back to the same problem.
We have not got to the point where the regional spatial strategy for the south-west has been accepted, and I hope it will not be accepted for the reasons I have given in Committee and in the House many times. Even if we go down that route, we are going to build an awful lot of housesthousand and thousandson very small areas of land. As I have said before, there would be more than 14,000 in my constituency alone, which is an increase of almost 40 per cent. on the current housing stock. That is a huge number of houses. Frankly, if we go down that route without the safeguard of the amendments and new clauses put forward by my hon. Friend, that would be very frightening indeed.
I noticed that the Minister was nodding during much of the speech made by my hon. Friend. I hope he will be sympathetic to the new clauses and amendments, for the reason given not only by my hon. Friend and me, but by everyone involved in this debate over the past two and a half years.

Martin Horwood: I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, Conservative Front Benchers, Ofwat or Sir Michael Pitt on everything, but I do agree with them on this. If I were being picky, I might point out that there are some slight drafting difficulties with some of the amendments, but their thrust is important and they address a crucial issue.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, this was a key recommendation of the Pitt report. Recommendation 10 is absolutely unambiguous:
the automatic right to connect surface water drainage of new developments to the sewerage system should be removed.
It also came as a bit of a shock to me to discover that the matter is not as clear in the detail of the Bill. When South West Water wrote to me, it stated:
Highway drainage systems are the most common route by which excess inappropriate flows gain entry into sewers and overload them. We do not accept that highway drainage should be permitted to connect to foul or combined sewers and that connections to surface water sewers should be by Agreement only... In order for them to perform the essential role of protecting public health, sewers must be regarded as critical infrastructure that should be protected from the effects of flooding as far as possible. Due to their location underground they are the first critical infrastructure to become affected and overwhelmed during heavy rainfall.
It concluded:
The Flood and Water Management Bill increases the risk of flooding from sewers resulting in failure of service, sewer flooding, pollution and increased costs.
That is a worrying conclusion. Of course, in new developments it is not just the individual drainage of houses but road drainage that is being added to. That is part of the whole equation. I am sympathetic to amendment 11.
New clause 14 is extremely important and the assumption behind it is that in practice, if the water companies consent is not given, new developments cannot proceed. I hope that would be the result of the provision if it goes through.

David Drew: My only fear relates to the notion of adopted and unadopted roads. We all have examples in our constituencies of developers coming forward with proposals that in due course would lead to the full adoption of roads, and we all know that that does not always happen. I know the situation is a bit more drastic where water is concerned, but will the hon. Gentleman assure me that if we pass the amendments, we will end up with clarity and not with adopted and unadopted sewers, and so on? Otherwise, this could be a nightmare.

Martin Horwood: Exactly the same thought had occurred to me. New clause 14 is drafted particularly with respect to new properties and raises the theoretical probability that people could be left in limbo again, with unadopted sewers. However, I think the implication of the new clausethis is why I said what I said before the hon. Gentleman intervenedis that in practice a new development could not go ahead if the water companys consent had not been obtained.
The new clause also states that no connection will be granted until
formal planning permission has been given.
It would be a rather brave local authority that gave planning permission for something when consent from the water company had not been obtained and there was no automatic right to connect. In effect, the local authority would almost intentionally create an anomaly in committing the new developer to that situation. Therefore, the new clause is not completely tidy. However, the important thing is that the issue in the amendments and new clauses is being raised here. I hope that the Minister takes that seriously enough to look again at whether we are implementing Sir Michael Pitts recommendation on that crucial point.
I have a slight difficulty with new clause 15, partly because of the word equally: it states that the planning authority, for all new developments, must
consult equally
(a) water companies and
(b) the Environment Agency.
I am pretty content for the Environment Agency, which is a Government body with explicit responsibilities for the natural environment and sustainable development, to have an important consultative role. However, water companies are principally private companies with shareholder interests and private interests. They are businesses and they might, somewhat mischievously, object to something simply because it might increase their costs. We do not want to allow that. However, the important point is that, through all the new clauses, we establish that there is no automatic right to connection. Developers have to recognise that.
Amendment 112 addresses a slightly different issue. We think there may be a mistake in the Bill. It appears logical, and it certainly is logical in a unitary authority area, for the approving body to be the lead local authority, but in a two-tier area, the lead local authority, being the county council, is not the planning authoritythat is the district council. The provision could create the strange situation where there is an extra layer of bureaucracy. The Local Government Association put it like this:
This situation also means that developers who normally apply to district councils for planning permission could be forced to seek a separate approval for developments from county councils. This would create a further complication for the recovering property market as well as additional wasteful bureaucracy.
The SUDS approval system should work in the same way as issues relating to highways. In these situations in two-tier areas the district planning authority consults with the county to ensure that highways issues are properly addressed. The same system should be used for the approval of SUDS. Local knowledge and a detailed understanding of the planning process are vital if this system is to be successful in practice.
Therefore, we are potentially complicating the whole process unnecessarily. There is a planning authority. It should have that responsibility and we should not in effect place that extra, rather complicated burden on the lead local authority, whose expertise is not really in planning. That is the purpose of amendment 112.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I appreciate the opportunity that the debate affords us to get into the detail of the issue and to clarify some matters. The issue that underpins thatit has been raised by the hon. Members for Vale of York and for Cheltenhamis the right to automatic connection. The question was, has that gone, and why is that not stated explicitly? It has gone. Let me explain why.
The automatic right to connection is being removed. That will be conditional on the SUDS approving body, an advisory body, approving the drainage. That is in line with the recommendation of Pitt, who wanted a process whereby developers have to consider alternatives to connection. Approval for national standards, which I will come to in a moment to help explain the matter, will do that.
In effect, we are talking about a hierarchy in respect of SUDS. The last optiondevelopers would have to show that every other option had been exhaustedwould be connection. So the automatic right to connection has gone. Let me explain the national standards, because they are critical to this. Those standards are being developed by the Construction Industry Research and Information Association. The first draft will be out in spring this year.
The legislative framework for delivering SUDS is set out in the Bill, and the standards will be open to public consultation. People will have the opportunity to input their thoughts on what we propose, on the costs, and on whether the process is good or could be improved, before we finally sign it off. A project advisory board, encompassing key stakeholders, has been meeting for some time to offer guidance on the development of the standards.
We are developing the standards with the industry, and we will put them out for consultation. I shall give an overview without revealing the result. Essentially, a hierarchy will compel developers to start with SUDS development of the various types, from swales to more complex underground tanks and so on. That is the hierarchy of consideration. We shall then put in criteria that the industry will have to meet. It will have to reason its way through many hurdles before it can say, Well, all of those have been exhausted. We simply cannot do it because of the geography, the topography, the environment. We cannot do anything else. Will you allow us to make a connection?
I do not want to go into technical detail, but the matter will be put out for public consultation. It will show clearly, in line with the Bill, that the right to automatic connection will have gone. We have flipped the situation completely on its head, saying, You start with SUDS development, and you have to work your way through that before being considered. Ultimately, the SUDS approving bodythe SABwill have to decide whether to give the go ahead.

Anne McIntosh: We are talking about different things. The hon. Member for Stroud expressed the frustration that we all feelthat no one quite understands what a SUDS is. I came up with a definition; when we get there, I hope the Minister will be minded to approve it. However, I am not talking about the SUDS. I have spoken to all the water companies and their umbrella organisations, and they are convinced that if the Minister persists with the Bill in its present form, there will be no end to the automatic right to connect.
I am not talking about the SUDSthe pond that takes the excess water, which may or may not invert into a sewerage pipe. I shall be very crude, Mr. Martlew, but as polite as I can be. I am talking about the stuff that comes out of the toilet and goes into the waste water pipe. It immediately connects into the main sewerage pipe, which is the responsibility of the water company and the sewerage undertakerit may not be the same company. A SUDS is completely different. My understanding of a SUDS is that, broadly, it takes two forms. One is the water spill-over off the road or highway. The other

Eric Martlew: Order. This is an intervention.

Anne McIntosh: It is. The other is what the Minister is talking about. In my view, it should never have a connection into the sewerage pipe because it is not sewage. The SUDS is the overflow for saturation and water-logging. The Minister must address that point.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Let me address that point directly. I understand now what the hon. Lady is pushing at. There is some confusion about what the Bill is trying to achieve.
Martin Horwoodrose

Eric Martlew: Order. It would be helpful if the Minister replied to the intervention before taking another.

Martin Horwood: But amendment 112 is on a slightly different topic. It relates to SUDS.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I shall deal directly with the point. There are no proposals to amend the existing right to connect what I politely call foul drainage from new developments to the public sewerage system. It is not in line with Pitt, and we believe that it is not in the public health interest to do so.
If there are capacity problems with foul drainage, it is reasonable to expect the sewerage undertaker to make provision for improvements to deal with it. Where the timing of such improvements is not found to coincide with a development proposal, it must be for the planning authority to take a view on whether the problem is such that development should be deferred. I hope the Committee is clear about that. I do not know whether anyone disagrees, but what we are dealing with is separate from foul water management and public health issues.
With your permission, Mr. Martlew, I shall continue. I wish to make progress on the amendments.

Martin Horwood: Will the Minister give way?

Huw Irranca-Davies: May I make some progress first, as I expect the hon. Gentleman will be asking about matters I am trying to clarify?
New clause 15 seeks to ensure that the relevant planning authority for all major new developments consults water companies and the Environment Agency. It further requires that the consultations are in accordance with planning policy statement 25, that they establish the impact of the proposed new development on the local drainage system, and that they inform the planning process.
I hope that hon. Members will be pleased to know that in England, the Environment Agency is already a statutory consultee for planning applications and is consulted on applications for major developments as well as for most developments in flood risk areas. Those arrangements are set out in a table in article 10 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.
Making all water companies statutory consultees for all planning applications would impose a significant burden on water companies. For smaller scale developments, the cost of assessment of applications might well exceed their value in informing a planning decision. It would also duplicate the arrangements for the SUDS approval process, outlined in paragraph 11(3) of schedule 3, which lists water and sewerage companies, as well as the Environment Agency, among the statutory consultees to the SUDS approval body or SAB. Water companies will be consulted if the SAB is considering a surface water drainage application and if a connection to the surface water sewer is proposed.
New clause 15 would also be inconsistent with the laudable set of policy proposals, on which the Government are consulting, aimed at improving the planning consultation process. Our aim is to reduce unnecessary consultation and to speed up the determination of planning applications, which is a major consideration for many people in their areas as we look for affordable housing and so on. Making all water companies statutory consultees would not support that objective.

John Grogan: I have two quick questions. First, would the Minister be more sympathetic to an amendment or new clause that had a de minimis provision, with water companies being statutory consultees for just the larger planning applications considered by local authorities? Secondly, to clarify, who judges whether the national standards for SUDs have been met in any development?

Huw Irranca-Davies: May I return later to the second point? The idea of a de minimis provision goes away from the principle that we are trying to establish, which is getting the balance right between the loads on the system, and the easing or streamlining of the planning application system. I shall come to how that works in a moment, because what we are also configuring in the Bill is the ability to streamline the point at which a potential developerwhether private or a social housing developerreceives an answer on the planning application and on sustainable drainage; they can have that answer at the same time from one person, without having to go to two different areas. I shall come to that, but it will help to deal with the issue that my hon. Friend has raised.
New clause 22, which may or may not be probing, seeks water and sewerage consultation on the proposed location of connection to the sewer. We would not normally comment on the drafting of such an amendment, but it is worth noting that new clause 22 as drafted would mean connections to the foul sewer as well as to the surface water sewer. I am not sure whether that is deliberate but, as the Bill deals with issues such as surface water, let me focus only on that element of the new clause.
Under the SUDS introduced by the Bill, the consultation proposed by new clause 22 is unnecessary. Following the removal of the automatic right to connect to the surface water sewer, the drainage of new development will be assessed in the light of the SUDS national standard, which would only allow a connection to the sewer as a last, or almost last, resort. As stated previously, the SAB will be required to consult the relevant sewerage undertaker before making its determination. As the Committee will be aware, paragraph 7 of schedule 3 provides that no construction can begin until SUDS approval has been obtained. The new clause, as configured, would add to the burdens for local authorities and for sewerage undertakers because it would duplicate the arrangements that will be put in place for SUDS approvals. I suspect that one of the things that has emerged from the debate is the need to provide further clarity, so it might be an idea to write to members of the Committee to provide further clarity on how we see the SUDS developing, how that hierarchy will work and how the right to automatic connection will figure within that and become, in a way, a last resort.

Angela Watkinson: Is not the point of difference in that regard, as I understand it, that where improvements are necessary to the sewerage system because of large new developments, under the amendment, the cost would fall on the developer, rather than the public body?

Huw Irranca-Davies: That is one of the proposals that have been put forward in our discussions, but it is not something on which we need to decide now. Because of the consultation that we will have, we will bring forward proposals, on both the hierarchy and alternative ways of funding, and I strongly suspect that the proposal that has been put forward will be one of the options. That is the appropriate way to do it, because I suspect that local authorities, developers and others will want to put forward their own ideas about the best way of funding SUDS development. Is it to do with individual householders, local authorities or developers themselves? Is it a proportionate approach between them? Does it depend on the size of the development? We do not have to decide on that for the Bill, but we will do so through proper consultation.
I did not explain one aspect. The regulation-making powers already in the Bill allow us to set a de minimis for who applies to the SUDS approving body, so we could do it through that approach. If we are going to do that, let us start with large developments. Again, however, we can consult on that and take further ideas.
New clause 14 seeks to introduce a restriction on the connection of any new waste drainage to the public sewerage system by making it subject to a number of new conditions. Those conditions are that planning permission is granted only after consultation has been carried out with water and sewerage companies on the capacity of their systems to manage the extra demand; that the companies have carried out a detailed assessment of the extra demand likely to be created; and that the responsibility of meeting the cost of creating any necessary additional infrastructure is apportioned.
I make it absolutely clear that it is for water and sewerage companies to finance their investment programmes, which already make provision for improving the capacity of their infrastructure where they have investment planned in response to proposals contained in development plans. To the extent that a local planning authority considers it necessary for investment in additional capacity to be brought forward to enable a development to proceed, it is already open to it to seek a planning obligation to provide for a contribution to the financing of that investment. Where it is not satisfied that the necessary infrastructure can be put in place, it may refuse planning permission.
As the Bill is about managing surface water, the ability to connect foul drainage to the public sewerage system will remain. However, subject to the requirement under clause 41, all new sewers and lateral drains connecting to the public sewerage systems will have to be built to a standard to be published by the Secretary of State and adopted as part of the public system. That answers the query that was rightly raised earlier. We have been through that before in relation to a different issue and do not want to repeat that mistake. That will be done by entering into a formal adoption agreement with water and sewerage companies under section 104 of the Water Industry Act 1991. Furthermore, as I have already mentioned, water companies will of course be statutory consultees to the SUDS approval process where a connection to the surface water sewer is proposed.
The hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshire have tabled amendment 112, which would amend paragraph 6(1)(b) of schedule 3 so that if there is no unitary authority for an area, the role of the SAB would not be given to the relevant county council, but to the local planning authority. Paragraph 6(1) of schedule 3 establishes a SUDS approving body and gives those functions to county or unitary local authorities. The SAB would be responsible for approving all surface water drainage systems for new construction work, in accordance with the new national standards, and adopting and maintaining SUDS that serve more than one property, where they have been constructed as approved. Placing SUDS approval and adoption responsibilities at the county local authorities level fits well alongside their existing responsibilities for highways maintenance. We expect many SUDS to be located in or alongside roads, especially within dense urban environments.
More importantly, county councils will have wider responsibilities under the lead local flood authority role in part 1. They will also have responsibilities for surface water management planning. Placing the SAB at the county rather than the district level, where many planning authorities are located, will mean that the SAB has the wider surface water and flooding overview, on a larger scale, to help it to determine drainage applications.
We have also worked to align the planning and the SAB approval processes. When planning permission is needed, the developer can apply directly to the planning authority for both planning permission and SUDS drainage approval, which would streamline the process for developersa point that I raised earlier. The SAB will be statutory consultee to the planning authority and will return its decision to the planning authority, which will notify the developer.
It should be noted, in line with the comments that have been made, that there is nothing to prevent unitary or county local authorities, in their role as SUDS approving bodies, from transferring by agreement their approval functions to a local planning authority. Let us be clear about that. However, the SUDS approving body would retain responsibility and liability for SUDS. The buck stops with the approving body, but it could delegate the function.
Amendment 11 would ensure that water companies are consulted on all major new developments and their waste water capacity. The clause is about the duties of risk management authorities in relation to flood risk management strategies, so the amendment would not have a meaningful effect in the context of the clause. In any event, what it seeks to achieve is not necessary because, as I stated previously, SAB approval is required when construction has surface water draining implications, and water companies are statutory consultees to that approval process when a connection to the sewer is proposed. On that basis, and with that extensive clarification, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.

Anne McIntosh: I regret that we shall not be minded to withdraw our amendment. I do not want to spend a great deal of time talking about SUDS, other than to respond to the Ministers remarks, but he will be aware that we are not seeking to make the planning authority or the local authority responsible for SUDS after the planning stage. The matter is controversial. I am not sure that everyone agrees with it, but it makes sense that, if we want to achieve such a result under the Bill, ownership would be better placed with the water companies.
I want to park SUDS until we come to the relevant amendments. The Minister is such a nice man that I find it disagreeable to disagree with him.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My wife says the same.

Anne McIntosh: I wish my husband would say the same about me.
Recommendation 10 of the Pitt review could not be clearer. It goes to the heart of the matter. It is a question of semantics. I am talking about waste water sewage, foul water sewagethe stuff that comes through the toiletwhile the hon. Gentleman is talking about surface water sewage. I am not disagreeing with him. There is an element of agreement, but the recommendation states:
The automatic right to connect surface water drainage of new developments to the sewerage system should be removed.
If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we are going further than that, I can point to several flood issues and incidents in 2007, 2005 and 2000 when the properties of recent developments were flooded with sewagefoul waterfrom existing developments. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Selby. He expressed it well. We are talking about major new developments.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Just for clarity, having been flooded three times in my flat with foul sewage, I know the unpleasantness of it. The hon. Lady accurately quoted Pitt, who said:
The automatic right to connect surface water drainage of new developments to the sewerage system should be removed.
That is what we have done. Recommendation 10 relates not to foul water but to surface water drainage. That is why we are trying to do what Pitt wants; let us not go further.

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman will have had the same conversations with the water and sewerage companies that we have had, and they are convinced that recommendation 10 covers foul water sewage. [Interruption.] If I may, I will complete my point before giving way. The incidents to which I refer concern foul water coming out of new developments that could not connect to the existing infrastructure at a time of flooding. That is why there were incidents of flooding in Cumbria, as the hon. Member for Copeland will know.

Laurence Robertson: I have listened to the debate about exactly what Pitt did or did not say, or what he did or did not mean to say. Although the report is extremely important, it is not necessarily the be all and end all. If my hon. Friend wishes to propose an amendment or new clause saying that foul water should be disposed of in such a way, she is perfectly entitled to do so, regardless of what Pitt said or meant to say.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that. The hon. Member for Copeland will probably confirm that that was the case in the Cumbrian floods. We are talking about major new developmentsI did refer to 20, 30, 50 or more houses in a development, so I do not think the scenario the Minister painted would be accurate. The reason why I pressed the Committee on this point is that we are trying to prevent floods from whatever source they come. The most recent floodsCumbria in 2007, 2005, 2001 and 2000clearly demonstrate that we are talking about a major source of flooding. There are public health issues and as the Minister knows from his own experience, with which I sympathise in a heartfelt manner, people are not allowed to return to their homesthey can only do that if it is river water or surface waterbecause of the public health implications.
It is outrageous that the Government are suggesting that water and sewerage companies should fund the improvements needed to connect the waste water coming from the new houses, which most people do not want next door to them, into the existing infrastructure. Frankly, why should I or my constituents pay, as existing customers of a water company who go through a five-year review to envisage what their requirements will be, when in the middle of that review there may be planning permission for 20, 50 or 200 houses of which they had no previous knowledge, and which the Minister is now saying they should account for? That is plain wrong. If we are saying that improvements to the infrastructure are only required in this case because of a new development, that should be reflected in who pays. If we ask the developer to pay, the cost will be transferred to the new occupants of those houses.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the hon. Lady let us know what discussions she has had with other stakeholders, including house builders and so on, about her proposal? I have some sympathy with aspects of it, but we do not need to fix this in the Bill. We need properly to take advice and to consult, and then reach a conclusion, rather than acting in a way that simply says, Regardless, it is all going to fall on this. She may well be rightI am not saying she is notbut we need to act in a timely way, and we do not need to do it here.

Anne McIntosh: With the greatest respect, what are we here for? We are here to improve the Bill. The Minister has had the required consultations. It is as a result of those consultations and direct face-to-face meetings that the Minister is asking water and sewerage companies to pay. If there was scope for wider consultation on the amendment before Report stage, I would be happy to concede that. I do not disagree with him about SUDS, but I believe it wrong in principle that the existing water and sewerage companies should pay for new housing that is largely part of Government policy, but not Opposition policy.
I have mentioned my last area of disagreement with regard to SUDS before, but the Minister has spelled it out so I would like to explain why I disagree with him. I do not believe that county councils are the appropriate authorities for SUDS, other than for those relating to highways. I disagree with their being the approving bodies for SUDS relating to major developments, to which he referred. We should write into the Bill that district councils, which are the relevant planning authorities, should be the approving bodies. We could then consider the amendments in which we take that a stage further when the time is right. I do not want to test the Committees patience too greatly, and I am happy to return to amendment 11 and new clauses 15 and 22 at a later stage, but I would like to press new clause 14 to a vote.

Eric Martlew: The new clauses will be taken at the end. The only proposal that can be voted on now is the one on the amendment paper.

Anne McIntosh: Well, with the Committees indulgence, I would like to press amendment 11 to a vote.

Martin Horwood: On a point of order, Mr. Martlew. I thought that new clause 14 was being pressed to a vote. What is being voted on?

Eric Martlew: New clause 14 cannot be pressed at this time.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: 52, in clause 11, page 8, line 33, leave out a risk management authority for an area in England and insert an English risk management authority.(Huw Irranca-Davies.)

Huw Irranca-Davies: I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 11, page 8, line 34, at end insert
(4A) A cross-border internal drainage board for an internal drainage district that is mainly in Wales must
(a) act in a manner which is consistent with the local strategies and guidance, and
(b) have regard to the national strategy and guidance.
(4B) Subsection (4A) does not affect the duties of a cross-border internal drainage board under section 12..

Eric Martlew: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 58.

Huw Irranca-Davies: These technical amendments will provide clarity on the duties of cross-border internal drainage boards in relation to the national strategies for England and Wales. We want to introduce a new subsection to clause 11, to state that cross-border IDBs for an area that is mainly in Wales will have to act consistently with the local strategies and guidance for the areas in which they lie in England and Wales, but will only be subject to the lesser obligation to have regard to the English national strategy and guidance.
Under the proposed amendment for clause 12, IDBs will also need to act consistently with the Welsh national strategy and guidance. A new subsection will be introduced to clause 12, to state that an IDB for an area that is mainly in England will have to act consistently with local strategies for areas in which they operate in England and Wales, but will only be subject to the lesser obligation to have regard to the Welsh national strategy and guidance.
Pursuant to clause 11, IDBs will have to act consistently with the national strategy and guidance for England. The amendment will not affect an IDB mainly in Wales, which will be regulated under clause 11(4)(a), as well as clause 12(1).

Anne McIntosh: My understanding is that these amendments address some of the issues identified by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, so we will not stand in their way.

Question put and agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I wish to raise one or two points that it was not possible to raise in previous discussions on specific amendments. Clause 11 refers to partnerships. In allowing, accommodating and even encouraging collaboration, does partnership have a special, technical meaning in encouraging local authorities to co-operate, particularly in river catchment areas, as we discussed previously? Different issues apply: the Ministers amendments refer to country borders; catchment managements refer to cross-council borders. I want to highlight the financing of the obligations arising from clause 11, because an ongoing concern is whether they will be properly resourced.
On subsection 3(a) and (b), is there scope for having regard to strategies and guidance? Will all the parties to which the Bill refers be formally consulted and will they have any input into the drafting of the local strategies and guidance?
Subsection (5) says:
The Secretary of State may by order require a specified person to have regard to the national and local strategies.
On a point of clarification, how would he identify who that specifying person would be? I want to strike a note that we are concerned that the decision making is not quite as democratic as we would wish. As has been noted previously, we want to be sure that the local plans are consistent with the national plan, but by the same tokenwhile admiring the role of the Environment Agencywe want to be sure that the agency may not overrule in any way what the local strategy in a specific area is planning to do. We would like to think that, as far as possible, local strategies will be as autonomous as possible for that area. Could the Minister clarify again how he thinks that the local plan will be consistent with the national plan, and will he ensure that the Environment Agency is not too overbearing in that regard?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to respond to those points. The clause will give effect to the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy prepared by the Environment Agency and the local flood risk management strategies prepared by the lead local flood authorities in England. Under the clause, the risk management authorities in England will be required to exercise the flooding and coastal erosion risk management functions in a manner consistent with the national and local strategies, as we discussed.
The only exception to that is the water companies, which are already subject to a separate regulatory regime. We concluded that they should not be bound by detailed local strategies. They are therefore required to exercise their flood and coastal erosion risk management functions in a manner that is consistent with the national strategy and to have regard to the local strategies and guidance. The Bill does not identify any water company functions as flood and coastal erosion risk management functions, but, for clarification, it does allow for such functions to be added by order.
The hon. Lady asked who a specified person in subsection (5) might be. Examples might well be Natural England, British Waterways or others, as time goes by. In addition, the risk management authorities will be required to have regard to the national and local strategies and any guidance when exercising other statutory functions that may affect flood or coastal erosion risk, so helping to ensure consistent approaches by different authorities.
Who will be consulted on the national and local strategies? For the national strategy, I refer to clause 7(3), and for the local strategy, I refer to clause 9(6), on which we had some discussion. However, as was mentioned, to allow for changing circumstances over time, clause 11 allows the Secretary of State by order to
require a specified person to have regard to the...strategies.
The hon. Lady asked who should be consulted, and we have rightly had some discussion on that already. All the risk management authorities will be consulted, and there will be public consultation on the local strategies. All those who have to act consistently will be consulted, and there will be opportunity for people to give input, and by so doing, to shape the strategies.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Effect of national and local strategies: Wales

Amendments made: 54, in clause 12, page 9, line 6, leave out subsection (1) and insert
(1) In exercising its flood and coastal erosion risk management functions, a Welsh risk management authority must
(a) act in a manner which is consistent with the national strategy and guidance, and
(b) except in the case of a water company, act in a manner which is consistent with the local strategies and guidance..
Amendment 55, in clause 12, page 9, line 10, leave out from exercising to must and insert
a flood or coastal erosion risk management function in relation to an area in Wales, a water company.
Amendment 56, in clause 12, page 9, line 12, leave out paragraph (a).
Amendment 57, in clause 12, page 9, line 16, leave out risk management authority for an area in Wales and insert Welsh risk management authority.
Amendment 58, in clause 12, page 9, line 17, at end insert
(3A) A cross-border internal drainage board for an internal drainage district that is mainly in England must
(a) act in a manner which is consistent with the local strategies and guidance, and
(b) have regard to the national strategy and guidance.
(3B) Subsection (3A) does not affect the duties of a cross-border internal drainage board under section 11..(Huw Irranca-Davies.)

Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Co-operation and arrangements

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 13, page 9, line 35, leave out may and insert must.
I hope that the amendment is clear. Instead of saying that a relevant authority may share information, the Bill would say that a relevant authority must share information
with another relevant authority for the purpose of discharging its duty under subsection (1).
It would be helpful if the Minister explained in which circumstances an authority may choose not to provide information in that regard.
The Minister said that the Bill will allow co-operation and such arrangements in relation to other amendments. However, we believe that the measure does not go far enough, and we would simply like to stretch it. Will the Minister say whether there are circumstances in which the relevant authorities may choose not to share information and what lies behind the existing terminology?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, I think that I can explain that because I certainly exercised my mind on the matter when the hon. Ladys amendment was tabled. I have tried to see the implications on either side. Just to reassure her, we are confident that the current drafting, which uses may, rather than must, and which we have done through parliamentary counsel and so on, is appropriate for the reasons that I will give in a moment.
The amendment uses the word must and would therefore require relevant authorities to share information, but it is not necessary because the duty to co-operate already entails a duty to share information if that is part of the co-operation. The purpose of subsection (2) is also to permit one relevant authority proactively to offer information to another authority without being asked.
I have explored the matter in some detail, so let me practically illustrate it. If we insert the word must into the provision to give that certaintyI understand where the hon. Lady is coming fromit could be a retrograde step. Doing so would require all relevant bodies, including, for example, water companies and highway authorities, proactively to go through all their paper and computer records, and find and pass on any information that they thought might be relevant to another risk management authoritys duties under part 2.
The amendment would put a huge obligation on such organisations that is probably beyond the necessary information that is actually required. It would certainly militate against the idea of encouraging people to work in partnership and volunteer information that they thought useful. It would send a lot of people in back offices running around as a result of their chief executives saying, Weve now got this duty; we must comply. Get out there, find everything we do and pile it there in front of them.

Angela Watkinson: In a previous answer, the Minister made it clear that the flood response organisations will be consulted on the development of the flood risk strategy. Will there also be a duty to consult after a flood emergency, so that lessons can be learned from the experiences on the ground to improve the strategy if necessary?

Huw Irranca-Davies: We do that already. The provision is not within the Bill, but we are doing that in the Cumbria example at the moment. We have significantly improved the systems over the years to learn the lessons afterwards.
It may seem an attractive idea to insert the word must, but it would in some ways constrain the willingness of relevant organisations to work in partnership and provide information that might be considered useful. The amendment would set in train work for a lot of people in back offices, take up a lot of their time often unnecessarily and produce a big burden for no great result.
In addition, clause 14 provides lead local flood authorities and the Environment Agency with a power to request information from any person and places a duty on that person to comply with the request. There are therefore sufficient provisions in clauses 13 and 14 to ensure appropriate information exchange without the amendment. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to the Minister for his extremely helpful explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for this opportunity to ask a couple of questions. On the co-operation and arrangements, particularly the democratic process under clause 13, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee expressed concern that the draft Bill would establish a rigid vertical structure, which clause 13 will go some way to relaxing, that could preclude the pragmatic cross-boundary, area-based approaches that accommodate local peoples views and knowledge. That Committees view was that local people currently do not have a seat at the table and that the Bill will dilute the ability of an articulate community to influence decision making.
Clause 6 defines Risk management authority and sets out the roles. A number of parish councils will probably take a view on some parts of the strategy, and I am sure that they would wish to be included. At the moment, under this part of the Bill, I do not see the potential for them to be included; they are not recognised as one of the risk management authorities. How exclusive is the provision, and what mechanism is there for such a democratic consultation process to take place?
Clause 13(5) states:
subsection (4) does not apply in relation to
functions
of the Environment Agency under section 7(1), or...the function of a lead local flood authority under section 9(1) or 10(1).
Will the Minister elaborate on why that is so?

Huw Irranca-Davies: This is a good opportunity to explain what we are trying to do. I welcome the hon. Ladys recognition that, through the clause, we are trying to put some flexibility into the system. We have put an express duty to promote partnership arrangements in the clause. That is particularly important, not least for water companies, which are private companies that exercise public functions. The duty to co-operate will mean that all relevant authorities know that they have to engage in local flood risk management.
One of the problem identified by Pitt was that many of the responsibilities were so fragmented between several organisationsnot through the fault of any individual organisationthat it never got to the point where the buck actually stopped. Co-operation will be the key to the delivery of the Bill, and it is crucial to this clause. It will also give communities the confidence that all authorities are working together to identify the most effective solutions and minimise flood risk. In 2007, there was a clear perception that authorities were not joined up in their approach to flooding. It is important that partnerships are underpinned by the new duty on all partners to co-operate and share information.
On local influence, we want to make it clear that we still want local input. The decisions will still ultimately be made by the local authority that leads on the strategy. The simplicity of putting things at that level, with the partnership feeding in, is important.
Clause 13(5) prevents the Environment Agency and the local flood authorities from delegating the responsibility for creating the strategy. That is important. We can delegate some functions and get partnership working going, but the question to consider is where the buck stops in respect of the strategy; it does not stop with those others who are asked for their help in producing the strategy. The clause stops the relevant authorities from passing on the responsibility and ensures that the buck stops firmly with the Environment Agency or with the local flood authority.
The clause has done a lot to get away from the rigidity that people were worried about and to give flexibility while still retaining the important bit, which says that the buckthe accountabilitystops in a certain place. We want to see the authorities get on and work in proper collaboration with others.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Power to request information

Martin Horwood: I beg to move amendment 121, in clause 14, page 10, line 25, leave out
provide information in connection with
and insert
such information as is reasonably necessary to perform.

Eric Martlew: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 100, in clause 14, page 10, line 25, at end insert reasonable.

Make sure requests are not onerous to individuals or company.
Amendment 122, in clause 14, page 10, line 34, after request, insert
or such other form or manner as may be sufficient to convey the information.

Martin Horwood: I shall talk first about amendments 121 and 100, which are in a similar vein, before moving on to amendment 122.
Some parts of the Bill are criticised for being rather woolly, with responsibilities not clearly defined and so on, but some of the powers hidden in its depths are pretty draconian. We come across one such power in clause 14, relating to the provision of information. That sounds harmless, but it puts a possible obligation on personspresumably it is generally envisaged that they will be landowners, but they could well be ordinary householders who happen to be riparian owners, or something like thatto provide any information in any form for any period specified by the flood risk management authority. That power is without qualification, and if it is not complied with in exactly the terms dictated by the flood risk management authority, the poor householder could be landed with a £1,000 fine.
According to rumour, some local government officials are at times inclined to gold-plate things and have a slight tendency towards officiousness. Obviously that never happens in Gloucestershire, and I have never come across it myself, but it is not impossible to imagine that a local official who was drawing up and responsible for issuing guidance on the local flood risk management strategy might be tempted to go completely over the top and demand information that would make his particular flood risk management strategy that much better than everyone elses. It could be quite a burdensome imposition on local landowners or householders to have to provide detailed information. The Bill seems to include no brakes on such requests for information. The brake that we suggest in amendment 121and in amendment 100, which is in a similar veinis pretty gentle, and I hope that the Government are minded to accept it.
Amendment 122 addresses the same issue in a slightly different way. It refers to the process by which the information is supplied to the flood risk management authority by an individual, adding a level of reasonableness to the process. The clause says that information requested
must be...in the form or manner specified in the request.
Surely what matters is the information. The form in which it is provided does not really matter. The clause is ridiculously over-prescriptive.
Through amendment 122, we are seeking to say that what matters is the information. If it can be provided in a different manner, but in a way that is equally effectivesuch as by e-mail, rather than on a particular form provided by the flood risk management authoritythat should be perfectly acceptable, and the law should not make someone liable to a £1,000 fine just for providing the right information in the wrong way. That is reasonable, and I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Anne McIntosh: I rise simply to support the amendments, which we have signed up to in our own right. It is important to reflect a level of proportionality, so we endorse the amendments and hope that they will obtain support from the Committee and the Minister.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I have a lot of sympathy for the points that have been raised, but I hope that I can give some reassurance. We do not intend the measures to be unduly burdensome, and do not intend sanctions to be brought, especially against individuals, because of an unduly onerous request for information. We agree that it is important that authorities do not make requests that are unreasonable, either in terms of what an authority requires, or in terms of the information that a person is expected to hold.
However, it is important that authorities have sufficient powers to acquire information from those who could be expected to have it so that they can, in the light of what we are trying to do in the Bill, effectively manage what are often complex and interrelated drainage problems. It is important that, where possible, such information is collected in a consistent way so that costs are managed centrally. The provision might also encourage data providers to co-operate fully in cases where it is known that they have data in a suitable format but are not inclined to provide it in the most appropriate manner.

Jamie Reed: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. I agree that such information should be uniformperhaps a collective bargaining toolbut it is not right that disproportionate costs should be incurred by smallholders and tenant farmers who do not have the resources to compile the information being asked of them. Could he be more prescriptive in his description of the kind of responsibility that such people have? What sort of effort should they make? How much time and what kind of resources are they expected to spend on the task?

Huw Irranca-Davies: That is a good point, and one which is in sympathy with other points that have been made. I quite understand what my hon. Friend says.
Let me turn to the issue of the individual who does not have an endless computer system with all of the records in easily e-mailable format. Such a person might have a map that could be of assistance in finding out what the assets are on his or her property. There is no way on earth that the EA or a lead local authority could request the same sort of information from them that they might anticipate another public authority holding. We must bear in mind that the authorities talk to each other. Given that collaborative approach, they should have a reasonable understanding, on a public authority level, of what each other holds and what can reasonably be asked for.
The point about the individual is important. The authority would be acting unreasonably if it required individuals to provide information at great cost to themselves. The Bill does not provide for the recovery of expenses. In general, the person from whom information is required would be expected to bear reasonable costs. That does not mean that the authority could say to a tenant farmer or individual landowner that it expected them to log electronically all the assets on their farm or smallholding in exactly the same way that it expected public agencies to log their assets. That would be completely unreasonable. I will show why that would not work.
It is important to note that we anticipate there being discussion before any enforcement notice is served. Those notices will not come out of the blue, and I hope that the authorities will be clear about that. Authorities will agree reasonable time periods in which any relevant person should comply. A smallholder might say, Im not interested in working with you. I will not even give you the map. I would expect the authority to say, We understand that there is difficulty in pulling this together. Well work with you and help you to compile the information.
If the person providing the information is unable to comply with the request, they can make representations under clause 15(2)(c) in respect of any enforcement notice. There is a right of appeal against any penalties that are imposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland is right that the request needs to be reasonable. It needs to reflect who is being worked with and what sort of information they can reasonably be expected to hold.

Jamie Reed: Does the Minister agree that the fundamental reason we need the information requests to be accessible and possible to comply with is that if they are not, we will be undermining the co-operation that we seek?

Huw Irranca-Davies: That is absolutely right. It is a matter of getting the balance right. People see the Bill coming and soon, hopefully, it will become an Act. The obligations are clear and the idea different authorities collaborating, so that everyone knows what is expected of them in risk management should over time reach the point when we are synchronising some information. I suspect that there has been acknowledgment already among many authorities that they have information that can be synchronised. We do not want to generate unnecessary costs so, over time, we should be trying to move to a situation where information among public authorities is easily accessible.
The importance of reasonableness is a fair point. It is implicit in all legislation that public authorities should behave reasonably, so the addition of such wording is unnecessary. In addition, there is provision under clause 7(6) for the Environment Agency to provide guidance to authorities on good practice for the exchange of information. I expect the authorities to make clear the issue of reasonableness and how the matter would affect different people and organisations, from the tenant farmer to the major public authority. What seems like a reasonable request is not necessary and, on that basis, I ask the hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshire to consider withdrawing the amendment.

Martin Horwood: In a sense, I am reassured by what the Minister said. I accept that he wants the requests for information to be reasonable and believes that they should not involve, for example, forcing small tenant farmers to maintain asset registers in an electronic format in the same way that a major risk management authority might do, or impose undue costs and time penalties on farmers who are running a small business and who really cannot afford such an imposition.
The hon. Gentleman said that it is implicit in the law, in general, that there is a right of appeal but, of course, that will not be of much help to small farmers faced with impossible onerous requests for information because they will not know that an appeal process is implicit under the law. They will not want to go through even more time and effort to deal with the right of appeal, which will be even more onerous than the original request for information. So, in practical terms, we need strong guidance in the Bill.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I might be able to elaborate on matters and give further assurance. First, the only information we are talking about is that needed in connection with flood risk management functions. Secondly, the Secretary of State will be issuing guidance on using the power and may, as I said before, direct the Environment Agency under section 19A of the Environment Act 1995. Finally, all requesters, as defined, are public authorities and they have legal duties to act reasonably in making such a request. In fact, any unreasonable request can be judicially reviewed, so I am convinced that the hon. Gentleman and others will be hotfooting it to the Secretary of States office to ask what the heck is going on if unreasonable requests are being made. I must say that my faith in the Environment Agency to carry out matters properly has increased as the years have gone by.

Martin Horwood: I have had to take so much on faith during the passage of the Bill that it is almost becoming a religious experience. However, perhaps the Minister is an inspiring role model and we should accept his word on this occasion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 14, page 10, line 35, at end insert
(c) subject to any reasonable confidentiality restrictions..
I wish to explain why the amendment is necessary. I also want to say a few words in the clause stand part debate, so I shall restrain myself at this stage. While we are keen, for reasons that I have given previously, to encourage the sharing of information on particular matters, we are mindful of the fact that we must not breach confidentiality. Water companies are worried that, while committed to the multi-agency approach in addressing flooding issues and being active participants in partnerships, the power in the Bill is wide-ranging regarding the right, in particular, of local authorities to demand information. It will be interesting to know what limits the Minister intends to put on the request for information, and whether he is minded to accept our amendment.
In the transition period prior to the Bill coming forward, the authorities will hold different standards, formats and purposes for information. Their main concern is the sensitivity and security of some of the information that they may be required to share. Obviously, the Environment Agency is quite reluctant to share some of its information, but there will be calls on some insurance companies and water companies, which have done some of these modulations. The Ministers regard for confidentiality may be implicit in the clause but we would request that it be made explicit.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am glad to have the opportunity to flesh out our thinking on this matter, although I am a little worried that I may be a reincarnation of some sort of prophet of flood risk management leading us to the promised land. The hon. Member for Vale of York has tabled a good amendment that seeks to subject any information provided under clause 14 to reasonable confidentiality restrictions, and I can see the logic in what she proposes. The way in which this amendment is drafted could be understood to put an obligation on the person who is providing the information. That is unlikely to be appropriate if an individual is providing the information, and unnecessary if the intention is to limit what the authority does with the data, since that will be governed by existing protection, including the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. There does not seem to be a strong case for treating flood risk management information any differently from other information that the authorities hold in respect of their duties on data protection and freedom of information.
The hon. Lady rightly raises the issue of personal and commercial confidentiality. In respect of information related to companies or to other businesses that are not protected by the Data Protection Act, the intention is for the Environment Agency, pursuant of clause 7(6), to provide guidance to protect commercial confidentiality. That will ensure that lead local authorities and the EA are able to obtain information that is needed for effective flood management and to share that data while also giving sufficient protection to commercially confidential information.
Additionally, most authorities will already have policies in place to protect the commercial or sensitive information that they hold. The Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 have provisions to prevent authorities from being required to release commercially sensitive information. Therefore, a raft of protections are already in place.

Martin Horwood: The Minister might find that the Freedom of Information Act protects such information when it is the authoritys own commercially sensitive information but not when it is that of a third party. This is a small but significant amendment because it should extend protection to commercially sensitive information, which is not covered by the Data Protection Act, and I am not sure whether the Minister has addressed that.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I hate to contradict the hon. Gentleman, but I have just described a raft of safeguards. One of the ones that I covered was the Environment Agencys development, pursuant of clause 7(6), to provide guidance that will include protecting commercial confidentiality in carrying out its role as a flood risk authority. So the issue is covered there if it is not covered in the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
Much of the information might relate to assets that would appear on the register maintained by the local authority under clause 21, which also gives both the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers the power to make regulations about excluding data from the public register or the record. There are tiers of existing legislation and regulations, plus additional guidance from the EA, plus powers of Welsh Ministers and Secretaries of State, if need be, to ensure further regulations.
Although I have great sympathy with the points being raised, because we need to protect sensitive information, we also need to ensure that we have the information that is relevant to carrying out the flood risk management functions. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member for Vale of York to consider asking leave to withdraw the amendment.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister has access to parliamentary counsel that we do not have. Is he saying that he is minded to address this issue and come back at a later stage? The Bill is currently defective because it omits any reference to this matter in the terms that the hon. Member for Cheltenham and I have set out. It is worthy of some reference. I would be the first to admit that the amendments drafting is probably far from perfect, but it goes to the heart of clause 14. Individuals, and certainly organisationsparticularly where there is a commercial aspect to informationwill be reluctant to provide it unless confidentiality is observed. Is the Minister minded to come back with such an amendment later?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I would honestly love to say yes, but it is not necessary to do so. A series of existing measures, and the enhanced measures in the Bill, allow the complete protection, both of commercial confidentiality and third party sensitive-nature information, including, as I have already explained, not only the existing aspects of the Data Protection Act and the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations, but the current duties on public authorities. The Environment Agency is bringing forward guidance on this matter that is specifically related to the information that they would request on flood risk management and on how to protect commercial and sensitive information in carrying out that function. In addition to that, whoever is in this seat as a Minister, or in the Welsh Assembly Government in the corresponding position as a Minister, has the ability to introduce regulations under the Bill excluding data from the public register or the record.
There are strong safeguards here, both in existing provisions and in the new ones that we have introduced, so the amendment is not necessary. But I can write to the hon. Lady clarifying all those things if it is helpful.

Anne McIntosh: I would like to take the Minister up on that offer. We will not press the amendment further at this stage, but we will keep an open mind and possibly revert. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: As I indicated, I should like to make some brief comments and press the Minister on this matter. He knows that we are fervently in favour of the sharing of data, especially maps, between the relevant partners and interested parties. That is vital and goes to the heart of flood risk management and it will also help to prevent institutional chaos, as seen in the past, and ensure that there is a more integrated and informed strategy.
Will the Minister clarify that under clause 14 the role of the Secretary of State is enhanced in terms of stepping in to restructure responsibilities and give approval to the Environment Agencys national strategy? The fear is that that could lead to local strategies again being interfered with by the Secretary of State. For the record, we have stated that we would like local strategies to be as autonomous as possible. We would regret any move to see a weakening of the local strategies in that regard.
The Select Committee expressed some concernsthey relate more to a later clauseand it was not particularly strong in encouraging the data sharing. The Select Committee went so far as to say that the Department should offer guidance on effective data sharing as well as safeguards possibly through secondary legislation. I would like to put on the record that we would prefer that guidance to be issued as soon as possible while the Bill is proceeding through its parliamentary stages in this place and the other place. We would like to think that we have some interesting things to say about the guidance, so that would be helpful.
I understand that the Environment Agency supports improved data sharing and co-operation between all flood and coastal risk management authorities. I hope the agency will be keen to share the content of some of its information as well. We also want to stipulate as far as possible that, within what the Minister has said, the work in liaising with local authorities and undertaking the data sharing will have a cost element to it. Has the Department costed it and if increased funds are needed, will they be provided? Basically, what will the guidance say on the accepted principles, standards and conditions that will apply to the sharing of the information?
In clause 14(1) the Bill states:
an authority listed in subsection (2) may request a person.
Will the Minister comment on who that person might be? Is it someone from a water company, a landowner or another individual?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I will try to respond to those points promptly. I will return to the issue of a person as a legal entity because a person in terms of legislation can be several people as well as an individual. On whether the measure extends interference in the local strategiesthe flexibility we were talking about in the local strategiesclause 14 does not affect that. We do not want to see that happen. We expect local strategies to be made locally without interference but, as we have said previously, that should be in line with the national strategy setting the overall parameters.
In respect of guidance, I can confirm, as I mentioned, that the EA will provide guidance and I share the hon. Ladys aspiration to see that as soon as possible. I do not know the time scale on that off the top of my head, but in my subsequent write around to Committee members, I will try to highlight what we know about that. Finally, in terms of the cost of data sharing, that will be part of the guidance that comes forward, which makes it even more important to try to get that as soon as possible.
In terms of who is a legal person, it is a legal entityas I mentionedand it could be any legal person. That includes everything from an individualwe talked about the individual tenant farmer beforethrough a company, a partnership and so on. A legal entity is a legally defined term, rather than simply one individual.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Martlew. Not being completely up to date with Committee proceedings, I wish to ask when we will vote on new clauses 14 and 15.

Eric Martlew: When we reach the appropriate point in our proceedings, which will not be today, I am sure.

Clause 15

Civil sanctions

Martin Horwood: I beg to move amendment 101, in clause 15, page 11, line 23, leave out the Minister,.

To limit important judicial powers of the executive and guarantee right of appeal to an independent body.

Eric Martlew: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 15, in clause 15, page 11, line 26, at end insert
(9A) Any instrument (regulation or order) under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament..

Martin Horwood: Having said that there were draconian measures hidden in the depths of the Bill, this clause is more Orwellian, so it is rather appropriate that the proposed amendment to it is numbered 101. The clause sets out that in the penalty procedure a Minister can establish a procedure for a right of appeal, perhaps to an independent court or tribunal, or to himself if he fancies it. That sounds almost like the model promoted in the famous British comic, 2000AD, in which Judge Dredd is law enforcer, judge, jury and, if necessary, executioner. That is not the kind of holy role model for the Minister that we were looking at earlierperhaps it is more appropriate for the Whip.
The Minister obviously walks on water, but how would a less popular Minister fare if, say, he belonged to the same political party as the lead local authority pursuing a particularly individual for a civil sanction, or perhaps had a very close working relationship, as one would hope they would have, with the Environment Agency, which is another possible authority that might pursue someone for a civil sanction? How could an appellant be expected to believe that a Minister was truly independent in that situation? It is pretty unwise to put through Bills conferring such quasi-judicial powers on Ministersit is neither desirable for the Ministers, nor healthy for our democracy. The onus is on the Minister to explain why an independent court or tribunal would ever be insufficient or inappropriate for hearing such an appeal.

Anne McIntosh: On amendment 101, we would like to see a specific appeals procedure introduced, because some of the powers are far-reaching and prescriptive, particularly in clause 15. We have some sympathy with the amendment, but we believe that a better way forward would be to introduce reference to an appeals procedure in the Bill. I understand that there are appeals procedures as a matter of coursefor example, regarding actions by the Environment Agencyso we simply want to give parties that might be caught under the civil sanctions some reassurance that that will be open to them.
Any instrument drafted by the Minister should be scrutinised and reported to the House, so in amendment 15 we are requesting that any instrument referred to under clause 15 will not be made unless a draft has been laid before Parliament, scrutinised, voted on and approved by resolution of both Houses. I hope the Minister will look favourably on the amendment. The clause will give the Minister substantial powers, and we think it only in order that such secondary legislation should be scrutinised in the normal way. I hope he will give us that assurance.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Again, the hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Vale of York have tabled two good amendments, but I hope that after I explain the matters to which they refer they will be regarded as probing amendments. Even though I feel aggrieved that they are trying to remove any reference to me from the clauseI do not feel aggrieved at all, because I understand the sense in what they are sayingthis is, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham said, a quasi-judicial issue, as opposed to one whereby a Minister would actually hear appeals in any normal course of action. An appeal would be against a penalty notice issued by a lead local flood authorityperhaps the Environment Agency, or even Welsh Ministersto a person who has failed to comply with the request for information by that authority. That is what amendment 101 seeks to do in clause 15.
An information request could be made under clause 14, and it would have to be in connection with the authoritys flood and coastal erosion risk management functions. A penalty notice could be issued only on the failure to comply with an enforcement notice in the event of an initial failure to provide the information requested.
I agree that it is important to ensure that a person is able to have the appeal considered by an impartial and independent body, and I understand the hon. Gentlemans reservations. In England, there is no reason why Ministers, in a quasi-judicial role, as well as courts or tribunals, should not be regarded as impartial and detached, as penalties are not imposed by Ministers. They will be imposed by the Environment Agency or local authorities, and not by the Government. It may not be appropriate for Welsh Ministers to hear appeals if they have imposed the penalty, and a decision would need to be made taking human rights considerations into account.
In any event, the inclusion of the Minister as a person who can be entrusted with hearing appeals is a standard way of providing for appeals. In practice, the Minister generally delegates those powers to an independent person. That is the case, for example, in the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 in respect of pollution, prevention and control permits. Such delegation also happens under the Water Resources Act 1991 in respect of discharge consents, the Water Resources (Abstraction and Impounding) Regulations 2006 in respect of abstraction licences, and the Environment Protection Act 1990 in respect of waste management licences. Those are a few examples; there are many more.
It is a standard way of doing things. In practice, in all those instances, the Minister delegates the powers to an independent person, usually from the Planning Inspectorate. I recommend that the reference to ministerial power be retained, primarily so that the Government have the standard flexibility to delegate it to another party, should it be required in specific circumstancesfor example, if the expertise or experience of another party is better suited to hearing a particular case or type of appeal. Clearly, we have no intention of a Minister ever hearing an appeal, either here or in Wales, if there is a conflict of interest. On that basis, I also urge against introducing an inconsistency between this and other legislation and between similar provisions in the Bill.

David Drew: Much as we have to be careful how Ministers powers are used, may I urge a note of caution? All the people whom I deal with say that it is not a question of the excessive use of power. In this area, what is often remarkable is the failureI pinpoint the Environment Agencyto take sufficient action and to impose fines. It should be made clear that the behaviour of some riparian owners is completely unacceptable. Everyone else loses out, so I would not want to dilute those powers in any way, even if the reference to Ministers is a fall-back position.

Huw Irranca-Davies: We are arguing to retain what has been described as a quasi-judicial role in order to make an effective appeal to the right person if any sanction has been put. However, my hon. Friend makes a good point. When necessary, the sanctions will need to be used. That is why they are there.
Amendment 15 would require the affirmative resolution procedure for any regulations made under clause 15. The Minister must by regulations provide a right of appeal against penalties in respect of a failure to provide information to an authority. The regulations will be important in so far as they will confer jurisdiction and make provision about the procedures. However, the details of the regulations are less important here because we are focused on the fundamental right of people to pursue an appeal. The regulation-making power makes it clear that a right of appeal must be available at all times. Changes to the value of the penalty may be needed from time to time to reflect inflation, if nothing else, and it would be an inefficient use of parliamentary time to require a debate every time that happened.
If there are concerns, either House of Parliament can call a debate and vote to annul the secondary legislation, as they can on other matters. Again, this is not unusual. In the unlikely event that proposed changes to procedural details cause concern, the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee can draw the legislation to the attention of Parliament to assess whether a debate is needed. The National Assembly for Wales will have the same rights in Wales.
In the light of that answer, I urge the hon. Member for Cheltenham to withdraw his amendment. I want to consign amendment 101 to room 101, because removing the reference to the Minister would go against a clear precedent in environmental legislation and, potentially, make it harder to ensure that a person can get an appropriate hearing. I urge him not to move amendment 15, on the assurance that Parliament can none the less intervene if any concern were to arise.

Martin Horwood: I am not sure that the fact that the Minister is in lots of other legislation is a strong argument for having it in the Bill. If it was wrong in all the other legislation, it would be wrong here as well. I worry about phrases about judicial functions being attached to Ministers, but, as with the other amendments today, I am realistic about the prospect of this one getting through the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Anne McIntosh: I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. I am not entirely convinced that

Eric Martlew: Order. Amendment 15 was for debate. There is no more discussion. Do you want to move it formally and vote on it?

Anne McIntosh: No, I was going to withdraw it.

Amendments made: 79, in clause 15, page 11, line 28, leave out authorities in England and insert
(i) lead local flood authorities for areas in England, and
(ii) the Environment Agency in respect of a failure to comply with a request in connection with a flood or coastal erosion risk management function in relation to England..
Amendment 80, in clause 15, page 11, line 30, leave out authorities in Wales and insert
(i) lead local flood authorities for areas in Wales,
(ii) the Environment Agency in respect of a failure to comply with a request in connection with a flood or coastal erosion risk management function in relation to Wales, and
(iii) the Welsh Ministers..
Amendment 81, in clause 15, page 11, line 31, at end add
(11) A reference in this section to an authority includes a reference to the Welsh Ministers..(Huw Irranca-Davies.)

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Funding

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I want to take the opportunity to question the Minister on the discretion written into the clause. The Minister spoke about some of the money not being raised by the Environment Agency or some not being raised by the local authorities. Subsection (1) says:
The Environment Agency may make grants in respect of expenditure.
To whom would the grants be extended and from what budget? Is that part of the funding to which he referred in response to an earlier amendment? Is the money going to come from that allocated to the Environment Agency? A little more background information would be helpful. Subsection (3) says:
A grant may be subject to conditions.
What type of conditions does he imagine would be attached?

Martin Horwood: I am also interested in the context in which the clause will operate and the context of the budget. I anticipate something of what the Minister will saythat the grants should come from the main Environment Agency flood risk management budget, which we have debated in Parliament on a number of occasions, for example.
For many years, the Liberal Democrats have called for the funding of that budget to be increased fasterand by hundreds of millions of pounds more, over a period of years, than the Government were prepared to put in. [Interruption.] The Government have indeed increased the budget, but we were asking for it to be increased faster. We had a great deal of support, not least from the insurance industry, in trying to push that forward.
Now that the money has gone, in a sense, and we do not have the flexibility to increase funding in such a way, can the Minister say whether there is a backlog of projects that have been approved by the Environment Agency but that are waiting to be implemented? The rumour is that the backlog is considerable. I would be interested to know whether that is the case and, if so, how long the backlog is. At the current rate of work, how many years will it take to clear that backlog?
It would be nice if we could look forward, perhaps even beyond the next Parliament or so when public finances will be extremely constrained, towards the more long-term future to which the Association of British Insurers and others have asked us to look. Flood risk management spending is going to be substantially increased, not least as an adaptation to the threat of climate change, which will increase the risk of flooding considerably. Climate change will probably increase storm surges in the North sea and the risk of coastal erosion. On current trends, it will certainly increase the level of precipitation, paradoxicallynot only snow, but heavy rainfall leading directly to flooding.
I only hope that we do not have an example of flooding later on tonight or over the next day or so, with large amounts of snow melt descending into towns such as Cheltenham, Tewkesbury and elsewhere, providing us with an immediate example of exactly how well our flood risk management is working at the moment. That, however, seems something of a possibility.
The context of the budget and the funding available for flood risk management at the national level is critical to our constituents. Flood defences are expensive operations. The flood defences in Cheltenham cost something like £23 million and were in place just in time to prevent flooding in 2007 being even worsealthough they have also needed work since, which has been a further expense. The context is very important, so I shall be grateful for the Ministers words on the subject.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Let me first respond to the hon. Member for Vale of York and clarify that the funding we are talking about will generally, as now, come from grand in aid, which is provided by DEFRA. One of the good, beneficial aspects of the clause is the increase in the flexibility about where that grant can gothe idea of local flexibility. IDBs or other partners on the ground could be involved in making good use of that funding. The Secretary of State and I have been trying to develop that theme, to allow such use to happen more often.
The agency can make grants, subject to conditions. In response to the hon. Lady, I should say that those conditions could, for example, include conditions for repayment or interest. There could be others. The grants may go to any third party in connection with spending on flood or coastal erosion risk management. In Wales, the policy is that the powers under the clause will be vested in Welsh Ministers.
I can actually give some assurance about funding in the long term. I hear what the hon. Member for Cheltenham is saying, but I shall repeat until I am blue in the face that the measure of our having an agreement with the ABI and its members is because of their recognition that the Government have made an unprecedented investment. It is never going to be enough, but the Government have made an unprecedented investment in both flood and coastal erosion risk management: more than £2.15 billion over three years, which, if we track back only a few years, dwarfs what was being spent before.
We are currently spending £780 million in the 2010-11 financial year, with £20 million of the original £800 million brought forward into the 2009-10 budgets, to provide early protection for 27,000 homes. The Environment Agencys funding for flood and coastal erosion risk management in 2010-11 will reach almost £660 million and the ABI is aware of that. I could go on, but let me talk a little about the long term. I will not exhaust your patience, Mr. Martlew, late in the sitting as we are.
The funding that we have announced for 2010-11 is consistent with the recommendations of the Foresight Future Flooding report. Of course, flood risk management is not short-term, as we have acknowledged; it is a long-term business. So we have asked the Environment Agency to develop the long-term investment strategy, looking at flood and coastal erosion risk management over the next 25 years. That should provide some more certainty and clarity about what improvements are required and when they will be made. So our commitment is absolutely clear.

Martin Horwood: Would the Minister like to share with us the numbers for 2010-11 and 2011-12 as envisaged by his friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Huw Irranca-Davies: As I just said, the amount to be spent in 2010-11 will be almost £660 million. I cannot talk about the following year at this moment, because I do not have the figure for that year available to me and I suspect that we might have to wait and anticipate what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor might say about future spending.
However, our commitment has been made clear in an upward trajectory of spending on flood defence. Our position as a Department is that we need to ensure that that spending is maintained. However, we have made it quite clear that we also need to ensure that contributions from other sources, whether private sources or local contributions, maximise the added value that we can obtain from flood defence and from flood risk management generally.

Martin Horwood: I am puzzled. The Minister said that the spending trajectory is quite clear, but it seems to have gone from more than £800 million in 2008-09 to £780 million in 2009-10, then to £660 million for 2010-11the coming year. He is not even sure about the year after that. That trajectory seems to be downwards. Surely he wants to see that reversed.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I explained to the hon. Gentleman that what we have done is to bring forward some spending from future years, first, to keep people in jobs at this moment and secondly, to bring forward flood defence measures for people to protect them in their homes. I think that that is a very good thing. However, we cannot spend the money twice. On that basis, I have no hesitation in saying, yes, we have actually brought forward spending to protect more homes now. That is a good thing, but unfortunately I cannot magic money out of the air twice.
Those amountseven the lowest amountare significantly higher than where we were not only a decade ago, but five years ago. We have made clear the commitments that we have made and that we must maintain. We have also made it clear that there needs to be more investment. I look forward to when the hon. Gentleman puts an exact figure on what he will commit any future Liberal Democrat Government to spend on flood defences, because that would indeed be very helpful.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Levies

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: We had a little discussion earlier about the purpose of levies in our consideration of one of the earlier clauses. The Minister said that the regulations may vary. In 2004-05, the rules about how the money could be spent were changed. Instead of the local regional Environment Agency being able, if you like, to hand out the grants or carve up the funds, from 2004-05 onwards the national Environment Agency took such decisions. In clause 17, we now have the opportunity for a local levy to be raised.
The problem that I have is that it is the same peopletechnically, the landownerswho will be asked to pay towards the local levy who are already paying their contribution towards the internal drainage boards. Perhaps another way would be through council tax payers; essentially, the same people would be asked to take this on. Furthermore, concern has been expressed that, to maintain the maximum flexibility in public accountability, the levy should be made available to fund all sources of local flood risk. It is really a case of whether that should encompass all sources of local flood risk in the area.
My main concern in asking the Minister to clarify clause 17 is about the local levy. Would the local levy fund against a localised flooding risk or the areas that we have just had an exchange about, in respect of a downward trend in the funding? Are we being asked for local levies to be raised so that they can plug the gap if no funding is immediately to hand through the normal sources of funding? I am raising our concerns about how the levy will be raised, from whom it will be raised, and what type of risks the funding will be used for.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.(David Wright.)

Adjourned till Tuesday 19 January at half-past Ten oclock.